Definition
De bonis non amovendis (Latin: "of goods not to be removed") is an ancient common law writ directed to the sheriffs of London commanding them to preserve a judgment debtor's goods and chattels in place — without removal or dissipation — while a writ of error brought by the debtor remained pending and undetermined. The writ functioned as a protective order on personal property: its purpose was to ensure that if the reviewing court ultimately affirmed the original judgment, execution could still be had against the debtor's goods. Without such a writ, a judgment debtor who brought error might use the pendency of that proceeding as cover to remove or conceal assets before the creditor could levy on them.
The writ was addressed specifically to the sheriffs of London, reflecting its origins in the machinery of the common law courts sitting there. It did not itself seize or transfer the goods; it commanded the sheriffs to see that the goods remained safely kept in their existing location pending the outcome of the error proceeding.
---
Common Confusion
De bonis non amovendis is occasionally confused with the better-known administration term "de bonis non" — short for de bonis non administratis, the grant of administration over assets of a decedent's estate left unadministered by a prior executor or administrator. The two phrases share Latin roots and the abbreviation "de bonis non" but are entirely unrelated in function. De bonis non amovendis is a pre-judgment preservation writ in the execution context; de bonis non administratis is a probate concept governing succession of fiduciary authority. A researcher encountering either abbreviation in historical sources should confirm which writ is referenced before drawing conclusions.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This writ belongs to the obsolete procedural layer of common law execution practice and will appear almost exclusively in pre-twentieth-century materials. Researchers are unlikely to encounter it in modern case law or statute but may find references in historical equity proceedings, early American and English pleading treatises, and form books derived from Registrum Omnium Brevium (Reg. Orig.) and similar collections.
Several research traps are worth noting. First, abbreviated Latin citation in historical sources — "de bon. non amov." or simply "de bon. non" — creates genuine ambiguity with de bonis non administratis; context (execution practice versus probate) must resolve the ambiguity. Second, the writ's geographic specificity to the sheriffs of London means that historical records of its actual use will concentrate in London court records and English sources; American colonial and early republic materials may reference the writ by name in treatises without reflecting active domestic practice. Third, because writs of error have been largely supplanted by modern appellate procedure and supersedeas bonds serve the analogous modern function of preserving assets pending appeal, the substantive protection this writ provided is not gone — it has simply migrated to different procedural vehicles. A researcher tracing the history of execution stays or supersedeas practice should treat de bonis non amovendis as an early ancestor of that doctrine.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry redirects to "Bonis Non Amovendis," suggesting some historical dictionaries indexed the writ under the noun rather than the full phrase; researchers using alphabetically organized historical sources should check both headings.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's first edition offers only a compressed label: "Writ for not removing goods." The second edition expands meaningfully, identifying the addressees (sheriffs of London), the triggering circumstance (writ of error by a judgment defendant), the operative command (goods safely kept without being removed), the duration (while error remains undetermined), and the purpose (preservation for execution). Both editions cite Reg. Orig. 131b and Termes de la Ley as primary authorities — standard references for the antiquarian common law writ register and for early English legal vocabulary respectively.
The Rapalje & Lawrence cross-reference to "Bonis Non Amovendis" adds no independent substance but confirms that contemporaneous legal lexicographers treated the phrase as indexed under its noun. No historical dictionary in the source set provides significant doctrinal analysis or records of the writ's practical use, which is consistent with its status as an obsolete procedural form rather than a living doctrine by the time the major English-language legal dictionaries were compiled.
What the historical sources collectively do not address: the writ's relationship to equity practice (whether Chancery developed parallel forms), any American reception of the writ, or the circumstances under which the writ was superseded by bond-based mechanisms for staying execution pending appeal.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ is English in origin and addressed specifically to London sheriffs, making its common law form a creature of English procedure. American jurisdictions received the underlying concept — preservation of assets pending appellate review — through supersedeas and injunction practice rather than through active adoption of this writ. It has no modern statutory form in U.S. jurisdictions.
---